THE JOYFUL PROSECUTOR: A MORE EMPATHETIC AND BALANCED APPROACH

Over the years, prosecutors have been criticized for exhibiting aggressive, competitive traits while negotiating plea deals, investigating and preparing cases for trial, or arguing for their positions before, during, and after trial. Prosecutors are asked to interact with others in a highly adversarial criminal justice system on a daily basis on top of working in a highly competitive environment back in their own offices. This environment makes it difficult for a prosecutor to see the opposing party through a more compassionate lens. However, rather than continually focusing on how “bad” prosecutors can be and how to punish their misconduct, this article suggests we identify what makes a “good” prosecutor and find ways to support those qualities and instincts. A prosecutor, according to ABA Standards, is asked to exercise sound discretion, act with integrity and balanced judgment, protect the innocent, consider the interests of victims and witnesses, and respect the constitutional and legal rights of all persons. A prosecutor who can exhibit these qualities and exercise good judgment in the face of conflict would be the ideal. In The Book of Joy, the Dalai Lama explains that inner peace and true happiness comes from having a greater concern for others’ well-being and exhibiting kindness, empathy, and compassion towards others. When we recognize our connection as human beings and we exhibit compassion towards others, we, in turn, feel joyful in our own lives. A new, joyful model of prosecution would require a reframing of the prosecutor’s role and relationships. An empathetic prosecutor would be able to perceive what others feel, process the information, and respond effectively with compassion rather than taking adversarial attacks personally. This is difficult to do in an environment where prosecutors must juggle the stress of seeking justice, protecting the public, working with law enforcement, consoling the victim, managing a high case load, and responding to repeated counterarguments by opposing counsel. We must encourage and support a change in the qualities exhibited by those in such a position. The rise of progressive prosecutors has changed the prosecutor’s environment and made displays of empathy and compassion much more accepted and commonplace. We must build on this display of empathy and choose prosecutors that are balanced and demonstrate a cooperative, empathetic spirit as well as a decisive, rational sense of right and wrong. A joyful prosecutor will be more empathetic and exhibit more balanced characteristics for the betterment of everyone involved in the criminal justice system

Good Policing Practices Are Difficult, Even for the Avengers

Policing, as a topic, is complicated. Many have strong views as to what police should or should not be doing and how effectively they are doing it. Too often policing has become polarized with various perspectives disagreeing as to the future of policing. Black Lives Matter, Defund the Police, and Policing Abolition movements are on one spectrum compared to the Blue Lives Matter Movement or other mayoral or police union initiatives. This is clearly a time to collaborate and learn from the various perspectives to bring hope and change in the future. Lawyers, academics, community members, and police officers alike are all asking the same question: how can we contribute to the national effort to examine and address issues in policing and public safety, including conduct, oversight, and the evolving nature of police work? This Article seeks to explore the realities of policing in a novel way and make overall suggestions to support effective policing. The Article will examine several policing practices by evaluating the Avengers as a police department in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (“MCU”) and look to the various perspectives in policing to do so. The Article will utilize (and criticize) this fictitious police department in order to touch upon several themes relevant to policing today: the concept of policing (the importance of structure and its leadership team), the community policing philosophy, police training, strategies and tactics used to reduce crime, the policing culture, problem-oriented policing (hots spots and predictive policing), police oversight, implicit bias, use of force, and current recruitment policies in place. Our perspectives on policing are shared in part by our opinions about what the police are supposed to do and how police go about doing their job. Using one of the highest grossing media franchises of all time to compare and contrast police department practices will allow the reader to get a sense of where we are currently as it relates to current practices and police culture and where we want to be in the future. The infinity stones displayed in Avengers’ Infinity War and Endgame serve as a perfect catalyst to explore the types of changes the readers, as future lawmakers and policymakers, might want to think about in the future. The structure and values of society itself (through the lens of the Avengers’ movies) can shape what police do and how the policing institution is organized. Most importantly, policing is all about relationships—relationships with the community, with other players in the criminal legal system, and within their own departments. The characters in the MCU display those relationships in every aspect and remind us of our own flaws and hope for the future when we collaborate and work together toward positive solutions to an incredibly complicated problem—fixing the criminal legal system

A Comparative Approach to Economic Espionage: Is Any Nation Effectively Dealing With This Global Threat?

In 1996, Congress passed the Economic Espionage Act (EEA), 18 U.S.C. Sections 1831 and 1832, to help thwart attempts by foreign entities intent on stealing U.S. proprietary information and trade secrets. Despite the passage of the EEA almost twenty years ago, if recent statistics are to be believed, there is so much trade secret thievery going around that the United States finds itself in the midst of an epidemic of economic espionage. Currently, any and all U.S. technology that is vulnerable and profitable is being targeted. Unfortunately, existing remedies and enforcement have barely blunted the onslaught against the U.S. which faces, according to the IP Commission Report, a potential 300 billion dollar loss of raw innovation every year. To date, there have only been a handful of § 1831 convictions since the Act was passed. That is hardly a deterrence or something to send shudders down the backs of would-be industrial spies. Despite U.S. shortcomings, the rest of the world has not done any better. This article explores the reasons behind the U.S. government’s two-pronged approach: preventing the thefts by educating and training private companies to improve security and safeguard their secrets, and reacting to acts of economic espionage by federally prosecuting offenders under the EEA, and why this approach is not succeeding. The U.S. approach has been weak for several reasons: (1) the EEA, specifically, 18 U.S.C. § 1831, has been difficult to prove; (2) the sentences under § 1831 have been minimal; (3) despite being educated on the pitfalls of lax cybersecurity and personnel controls, there is a lack of buy-in from private industry to cooperate with law enforcement and/or tighten office security measures to prevent IP theft; (4) the federal government has taken a relatively hands-off approach in assisting private enterprise; and (5) other countries do not assist in international investigations due to their own weak response or individual attitudes towards intellectual property theft or in some cases, are the same foreign countries involved in the theft. This article also examines how various countries are handling the economic espionage threat and how differences in cultural, historical, and nationalistic backgrounds as well as economic and political governance allow some countries to be unapologetic supporters of state-sponsored economic espionage. The overall global response to economic espionage is weak, and a stronger U.S. response is needed

Rethinking the Fourth Amendment in the Age of Supercomputers, Artificial Intelligence, and Robots

In an era of diminishing privacy, the Internet of Things ( loT ) has become a consensual and inadvertent tool that undermines privacy protection. The loT, really systems of networks connected to each other by the Internet or other radio-type device, creates consensual mass self-surveillance in such domains as fitness and the Fitbit, health care and heart monitors, smart houses and cars, and even smart cities. The multiple networks also have created a degree of interconnectivity that has opened up a fire hose of information for companies and governments alike, as well as making it virtually insuperable to live off the grid in the modem era. This treasure trove of information allows for government tracking in unprecedented ways. This Article explores the influence of the JoT, the mass self-surveillance it produces on privacy, and the new shapes of privacy that are emerging as a result. This Article offers several forms of protection against the further dissipation of privacy

A Comparative Approach to Economic Espionage: Is Any Nation Effectively Dealing With This Global Threat?

In 1996, Congress passed the Economic Espionage Act (EEA), 18 U.S.C. Sections 1831 and 1832, to help thwart attempts by foreign entities intent on stealing U.S. proprietary information and trade secrets. Despite the passage of the EEA almost twenty years ago, if recent statistics are to be believed, there is so much trade secret thievery going around that the United States finds itself in the midst of an epidemic of economic espionage. Currently, any and all U.S. technology that is vulnerable and profitable is being targeted. Unfortunately, existing remedies and enforcement have barely blunted the onslaught against the U.S. which faces, according to the IP Commission Report, a potential 300 billion dollar loss of raw innovation every year. To date, there have only been a handful of § 1831 convictions since the Act was passed. That is hardly a deterrence or something to send shudders down the backs of would-be industrial spies. Despite U.S. shortcomings, the rest of the world has not done any better. This article explores the reasons behind the U.S. government’s two-pronged approach: preventing the thefts by educating and training private companies to improve security and safeguard their secrets, and reacting to acts of economic espionage by federally prosecuting offenders under the EEA, and why this approach is not succeeding. The U.S. approach has been weak for several reasons: (1) the EEA, specifically, 18 U.S.C. § 1831, has been difficult to prove; (2) the sentences under § 1831 have been minimal; (3) despite being educated on the pitfalls of lax cybersecurity and personnel controls, there is a lack of buy-in from private industry to cooperate with law enforcement and/or tighten office security measures to prevent IP theft; (4) the federal government has taken a relatively hands-off approach in assisting private enterprise; and (5) other countries do not assist in international investigations due to their own weak response or individual attitudes towards intellectual property theft or in some cases, are the same foreign countries involved in the theft. This article also examines how various countries are handling the economic espionage threat and how differences in cultural, historical, and nationalistic backgrounds as well as economic and political governance allow some countries to be unapologetic supporters of state-sponsored economic espionage. The overall global response to economic espionage is weak, and a stronger U.S. response is needed

United States v. Jones: Big Brother and the Common Good versus the Fourth Amendment and Your Right to Privacy

In the center of the town of Siena, Italy, lays the Palazzo Publico which was built between 1297 and 1310. Inside the Palazzo Publico is the Sala della Pace, the Hall of Peace, which houses an early piece of Italian secular arta fresco that illustrates the effect government has on the city, its people, and the countryside.\u27 The painter, Ambrogio Lorenzetti, depicted the Common Good as a king, sitting tall and strong above a line of smaller-sized, everyday people who are slowly making their way towards the Common Good. This picture represents the subordination of private interest to the common good